A history of recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with increased perinatal complications, but not necessarily a longer birth interval: a population study spanning 18 years
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in the time interval between the first and second live births among individuals with and without recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Primary RPL (two or more pregnancy losses before the first live birth) is associated with a shorter time interval between the first and second live births compared with individuals without RPL, but this association is reversed in patients with secondary RPL (RPL patients with no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is limited information regarding the ability to have more than one child for patients with RPL. Previous studies have investigated the time to live birth and the live birth rate from the initial presentation to clinical providers. Most of the previous studies have included only patients treated at specialized RPL clinics and thus may be limited by selection bias, including patients with a more severe condition. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 184 241 participants who delivered in British Columbia, Canada, and had at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018. The aim was to study the differences in the time interval between the first and second live births and the prevalence of pregnancy complications in patients with and without RPL. Additionally, 198 319 individuals with their first live birth between 2000 and 2010 were studied to evaluate cumulative second live birth rates. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Among individuals with at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018, 12 321 patients with RPL and 171 920 participants without RPL were included. RPL was defined as at least two pregnancy losses before 20 weeks gestation. Patients with primary RPL had at least two pregnancy losses occurring before the first live birth, while patients with secondary RPL had no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth. We compared the time interval from the first to second live birth in patients with primary RPL, those with secondary RPL, and participants without RPL using generalized additive models to allow for a non-linear relationship between maternal age and time interval between first and second live births. We also compared prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births between the groups using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. We assessed the cumulative second live birth rates in patients with primary RPL and those without RPL, among participants who had their first live birth between 2000 and 2010. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate and compare hazard ratios between the two groups using a stratified modelling approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The adjusted time interval between the first and second live births was the longest in patients with secondary RPL, followed by individuals without RPL, and the shortest time interval was observed in patients with primary RPL: 4.34 years (95% CI: 4.09-4.58), 3.20 years (95% CI: 3.00-3.40), and 3.05 years (95% CI: 2.79-3.32). A higher frequency of pregnancy losses was associated with an increased time interval between the first and second live births. The prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births, including gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, preterm birth, and multiple gestations was significantly higher in patients with primary RPL compared with those without RPL. The cumulative second live birth rate was significantly lower in patients with primary RPL compared with individuals without RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study may be limited by its retrospective nature. Although we adjusted for multiple potential confounders, there may be residual confounding due to a lack of information about pregnancy intentions and other factors, including unreported pregnancy losses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study provide information that will help clinicians in the counselling of RPL patients who desire a second child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported in part by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): Reference Number W11-179912. M.A.B. reports research grants from CIHR and Ferring Pharmaceutical. He is also on the advisory board for AbbVie, Pfizer, and Baxter. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04360564.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».